Comments on: The Common Sense Climate

By: Integrity Lost | A Moment with Mumma

Integrity Lost | A Moment with Mumma — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:09:08 +0000

[...] that these climatologists are shrouding the truth. As mentioned in a previous article of mine, The Common Sense Climate, there are many well-regarded scientists who disagree entirely with the theories behind [...]

By: Damien Duff

Damien Duff — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:24:55 +0000

Alas, Monsieur Mumma, you are again mistaken!
Surely, we all learned in grammar school that CO2 to plants is like petrol to a Texan! They both love each other. However, you must also remember from that science classroom that there is a delicate balance to the Earth’s atmosphere which makes it A. liveable for us Darwinian folly, and B. breathable! Therefore, just saying that more CO2 is not necessarily bad is quite contrary to the health of humans. However, if your underlying agenda is to kill off humans by increasing CO2 content then good luck to you lad, har har.
And lastly my good sir, who cares about temperature? I apologise if I was unclear in my previous attempts to communicate this point, but I don’t bloody give a damn about the temperature! You are correct that we must learn more about temperature cycles. However you are incorrect in thinking that we musn’t investigate and try to figure out the correlation between CO2 and other so-called cycles that are occurring. I am quite familiar with this idea of correlations and causalities. However, normally in science we do many more experiments to prove a correlation physically false. That is how the scientific method was designed. However, you must also see that it is quite difficult to design experiments around the Earth’s atmosphere! We cannot easily replicate it and our data does not go back that far. Thus, M. Mumma, we must take some corrective actions. If they have no effect, then we will have proved the correlation wrong and you are vindicated! If they are not proven wrong, then I shall hope we send a message to those petrol fiends in Texas.

Excellent rebuttal my dear sir, but your scientific and stastical theory knowledge needs some work.

DSD

By: William Thode

William Thode — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:25:41 +0000

Very on point, Ben. I’d say the Phil Jones interview on BBC just proves the alarmists wrong.

By: Benjamin Mumma

Benjamin Mumma — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:00 +0000

Mr. Duff,
Thank you for your detailed response to my article. Regarding your original comment, I appreciate your arguments. However, I disagree with the arguments you make with regard to CO2.

First off, you state that there is a correlation – that is correct. However, as I am sure you also know, correlation does not imply causality. Indeed I forget which source, but I am fairly certain one of them details that CO2 rises as a result of warming, not the other way around.

Second, Dr. Happer explains in his testimony that, essentially, CO2′s role in affecting the climate is relatively minor, on the order of less than one degree celsius. I am not claiming his ideas are scientific fact, merely pointing out that there is not a consensus on ‘climate change.’ Certainly, recent events further illustrate this point.

Finally, you mention CO2 as a human toxin. It is also a necessary ingredient for plant life, and is also emitted into the atmosphere with every breath we take. It’s a natural chemical and shouldn’t be treated as a dangerous pollutant as the EPA would like to do.

In the end, I am in favor having clean energy, and a clean economy. I am also in favor of learning a lot more about our climate, how it changes, and how we can change it. However the climate alarmists’ attempts to incite panic and demand immediate action has led to mistakes, and will lead to more mistakes if it continues to have influence. I would prefer a deliberate, rational and unbiased approach that would allow decisions to be made intelligently.

Thanks for your comment,
Ben

By: William Thode

William Thode — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:45:14 +0000

Sp, we hamper our production and such just to prove a theory that’s hard to measure to begin with? Because you do realize the entire world would have to decrease fossil fuel burning by a significant number for any real difference to be had, right? And that any decrease in fossil fuel usage is offset by increases in the population? Or that because China and India will not get on board, testing your theory is a pipe dream?

What I say is this: invest heavily in green energy until a breakthrough is had. This breakthrough must be cheaper than oil and coal, easy to mass produce, easy to set up infrastructure across the country (power plants and filling stations,) etc. Until such a breakthrough is reached, nuclear power, oil, coal, natural gas, solar, biofuels, wind, etc. This is an all of the above energy policy, one Obama endorsed in his State of the Union address. This was by far the most important part of his speech. I just hope he comes through with the change… Yes, we can?